This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sauaia, A. Articles by Dunn, T. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sauaia, A. Articles by Dunn, T. R. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Influencing Care in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Trial Comparing 2 Types of Intervention

Colorado Foundation for Medical Care, Aurora, Colo, asauaia{at}cfmc.org

Debra Ralston

Colorado Foundation for Medical Care, Aurora, Colo

W. William Schluter, MD, MSPH

Colorado Foundation for Medical Care, Aurora, Colo

Thomas A. Marciniak, MD

Colorado Foundation for Medical Care, Aurora, Colo, and the Health Care Financing Administration, Baltimore, Md

Edward P. Havranek, MD

Colorado Foundation for Medical Care, Aurora, Colo, the Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colo, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colo

Thomas R. Dunn, MD

Colorado Foundation for Medical Care, Aurora, Colo, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colo

The purpose of this study was to evaluate performance feedback delivered by on-site presentations compared to mailed feedback on improving acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care. We used a randomized trial including 18 hospitals nested within the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. Patients comprised AMI Medicare patients admitted before (n = 929, 1994 and 1995) and after intervention (n = 438, 1996). Control hospitals received written feedback by mail. The experimental intervention group received a presentation led by a cardiologist and a quality improvement specialist. We assessed the proportion of patients receiving appropriate AMI care before and after the intervention. Both univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated no effect of the intervention in increasing the proportion of patients who received reperfusion, aspirin, beta-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme in- hibitors. On-site feedback presentations were not associated with a larger improvement in AMI care compared to the mailed feedback. Other interventions, such as opinion leaders and patient-directed interventions, may be necessary in order to improve the care of AMI patients.

Key Words: Medicare • myocardial infarction • quality of care • randomized trial

American Journal of Medical Quality, Vol. 15, No. 5, 197-206 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/106286060001500503


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. De Vos, W. Graafmans, M. Kooistra, B. Meijboom, P. Van Der Voort, and G. Westert Using quality indicators to improve hospital care: a review of the literature Int. J. Qual. Health Care, April 1, 2009; 21(2): 119 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Brush Jr, E. Rensing, F. Song, S. Cook, J. Lynch, L. Thacker, S. Gurram, R. O. Bonow, J. Brough, and C. M. Valentine A Statewide Collaborative Initiative to Improve the Quality of Care for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure Circulation, March 31, 2009; 119(12): 1609 - 1615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Jamtvedt, J. M Young, D. T Kristoffersen, M. A. O'Brien, and A. D Oxman Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback Qual. Saf. Health Care, December 1, 2006; 15(6): 433 - 436. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]